On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 12:15:49PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 12:45:37PM +0100, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 12:50:56PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > How does this relate to the virtio audio spec that's currently under > > > review? > > > The spec under discussion is only for simple audio virtualisation with fixed > > roles and topologies. With our approach guests get access to advanced DSP > > capabilities. The virtualisation approach under discussion can be a fallback > > for cases when no DSP has been detected on the host. > > So they're orthogonal :/ Have you proposed your spec yet? > > > > It looks to be doing something much lower level than that. > > > I am concerned that this looks to be exposing DPCM as a virtio ABI, > > > we're trying to replace it as an internal API never mind ABI. > > > You mean that our approach works at the widget level, which is a part of the > > DPCM API? Well there is a translation layer between our ABI and DPCM. And by > > virtue of the same argument don't we already have DPCM as an ABI on the > > opposite side of SOF - in its IPC ABI? Largely this virtualisation approach > > doesn't add new interfaces, it re-uses the SOF IPC ABI, which is also one of > > its advantages. > > Please bear in mind that the page you linked to is very high level and > I've not seen the actual spec or anything. The page and your mails both > talk about DPCM so it sounds like that's a part of the interface. Let me rebase my current stack and post it here, stay tuned :-) Thanks Guennadi
